390D.11/153
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. George V. Allen of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
| Participants: | Turkish Ambassador |
| Mr. Murray | |
| Mr. Allen |
The Turkish Ambassador called to discuss further the proposed exchange of notes between the United States and Turkey regarding the termination of the allegiance owed to Turkey by certain naturalized American citizens who are natives of territory detached from the Ottoman Empire by the Treaty of Lausanne.
[Page 1110]The Turkish Ambassador said that he had received instructions from his Foreign Office to discuss the subject with officials of the Department in order to clarify certain points which the Turkish Government has in mind. These points, to which he had referred in his conversation of June 2 with Mr. Murray, concern (1) the Turkish law which denies to persons who have lost their Turkish nationality the right to enter Turkey and (2) Turkey’s desire to avoid the presentation of claims on behalf of the persons to be covered in the exchange of notes.
As regards the first point Mr. Murray drew the Ambassador’s attention to Article 1 of the Treaty of Establishment and Sojourn73 between the United States and Turkey, which contains the following provision:
“Nothing contained in this treaty shall be construed to affect existing statutes and regulations of either country in relation to the immigration of aliens or the right of either country to enact such statutes.”
Mr. Murray said that under the American Government’s interpretation of this Article, the term “immigration of aliens” is held to include the entry of aliens for temporary visits as well as for permanent residence. The Turkish Ambassador expressed the opinion that this Article adequately safeguarded Turkey’s right to deny admission to persons to be divested of Turkish allegiance by the proposed exchange of notes.
As regards the question of claims, Mr. Murray pointed out that the Department is of course aware of the position taken by the Turkish Government at the time of the Turkish-American claims settlement of 1934, namely that the Turkish Government was unwilling to receive claims on behalf of persons who were, under Turkish law, Turkish citizens at the time the claim arose.
Discussion then took place regarding the method which the Turkish Government might employ to effect the termination of the Turkish citizenship of the persons involved. The Turkish Ambassador said that the termination might be effected either by action in individual cases or by a blanket provision covering all persons within the category to be specified. If the termination should be made in individual cases, the Turkish Government would probably desire that the American Government submit a list of names of all the individuals to be covered. The Turkish Council of Ministers would then declare that the persons named on the list had been divested of their Turkish citizenship. If this method were used, the Ambassador said no legislation [Page 1111] would be required. If a blanket method were adopted, however, an act ratified by the Turkish Parliament would probably be necessary.
The Ambassador was informed that it was believed to be impracticable to adopt the individual method since the drawing up of lists of the persons to be affected would not be feasible. To this suggestion he readily agreed.
Mr. Murray pointed out that the Turkish Council of Ministers had found itself able to agree, in an exchange of notes with the French Ambassador at Istanbul on May 29, 1937, to the extension of one year in which natives of Syria and the Lebanon might opt for Syrian and Lebanese citizenship. He suggested that this action might possibly indicate a method of procedure which the Council of Ministers might be able to adopt in the present instance. At the Ambassador’s request, a copy of this exchange of notes, in the French text, was given to him. He was also supplied with a copy, in the French text, of the Knabenshue–Gouraud Agreement of November 15 and December 2, 1921. He promised to study these notes with a view to finding some means by which blanket action might be taken by the Council of Ministers.
In discussing the draft note which the American Embassy in Istanbul has already presented to the Turkish Government (see Department’s instruction to Istanbul No. 208 of February 15, 1938), the Turkish Ambassador suggested that in lieu of the statement “Natives of those territories detached from the Ottoman Empire by the Treaty of Lausanne” it might be preferable to specify merely Syria and the Lebanon, since the natives of those countries were the principal ones who are interested in having their Turkish allegiance terminated. Mr. Murray replied that he thought it would be preferable to leave the wording as it stands, since if the exchange of notes were limited in its application to Syrians and Lebanese, American citizens who are natives of other parts of the Ottoman Empire detached by the Treaty of Lausanne might complain. The Ambassador agreed that his suggestion was of minor importance and that he did not believe his Government would object to the wording proposed by the United States.
There was discussion, also, concerning the following phrase in the draft note: “The Government of Turkey is willing to relinquish all claim to the allegiance of”. The Ambassador concurred in Mr. Murray’s suggestion that it would be preferable to make this wording more positive by changing the phrase “is willing to relinquish” to “relinquishes”.
The Ambassador said that he would like to continue the discussion within a few days, after he had had an opportunity to study the material which had been furnished him.
- Signed at Ankara, October 28, 1931, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. ii, p. 1042.↩